Monbiot on speed cameras and the real war
in [UK Drivers]
|
From: Adrian on 28 Jul 2010 05:09 Chelsea Tractor Man <mr.c.tractor(a)hotmail.co.uk> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: >> Anyone who drives at high speed past a yellow Gatso camera should be >> done for driving without due care and attention anyway > indeed. But do you meet 82% of people who approve of them? I don't. I rather suspect it depends on what question is actually asked...
From: Squashme on 28 Jul 2010 05:20 On 28 July, 10:03, Chelsea Tractor Man <mr.c.trac...(a)hotmail.co.uk> wrote: > On Wed, 28 Jul 2010 01:48:13 -0700 (PDT), Squashme wrote: > >>> But motorists allegedly can control themselves, but do not wish to. > > >> Cyclists allegedly can control themselves, but do not wish to. > > >> Do you see how stupid and pointless this is? > > > What is? > > whining "If you say that someone is whining, you mean that they are complaining in an annoying way about something unimportant." Web definition. Unimportant.
From: Squashme on 28 Jul 2010 05:31 On 28 July, 10:23, Chelsea Tractor Man <mr.c.trac...(a)hotmail.co.uk> wrote: > On Wed, 28 Jul 2010 02:20:11 -0700 (PDT), Squashme wrote: > >>> What is? > > >> whining > > > "If you say that someone is whining, you mean that they are > > complaining in an annoying way about something unimportant." Web > > definition. > > > Unimportant. > > I refer you to your "pavements" comment. > > We all know that a ton of car is potentially more dangerous than a push > bike, endlessly repeating that is pointless. > -- We all know that a ton of car is potentially more dangerous than a push bike We all know that a ton of car is potentially more dangerous than a push bike We all know that a ton of car is potentially more dangerous than a push bike We all know that a ton of car is potentially more dangerous than a push bike We all know that a ton of car is potentially more dangerous than a push bike We all know that a ton of car is potentially more dangerous than a push bike We all know that a ton of car is potentially more dangerous than a push bike We all know that a ton of car is potentially more dangerous than a push bike We all know that a ton of car is potentially more dangerous than a push bike We all know that a ton of car is potentially more dangerous than a push bike We all know that a ton of car is potentially more dangerous than a push bike We all know that a ton of car is potentially more dangerous than a push bike u.s.w. Pointless? OK, my work here is done. Off to the boot fair, on my bike.
From: Mr. Benn on 28 Jul 2010 06:09 "Chelsea Tractor Man" <mr.c.tractor(a)hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message news:sdoxf2hi88nx$.q981oq0lv086.dlg(a)40tude.net... > On Wed, 28 Jul 2010 09:41:18 +0100, JNugent wrote: > >> Good perspective. Near a busy school and placed in such a position as to >> check speed of vehicles at spots where traffic conflict is likely would >> be a >> good example. >> >> 75 yards short of a 40 limit becoming NSL on a dual-carriageway is the >> more >> likely spot to find one though. > > I see very few outside schools and many on duals in that sort of > situation. > The all time classic is on the A303 where a camera stops you speeding up > to > get back into lane one before you get near the blind brow of a hill, > whoever put that one in was an idiot. I know that one very well. It wouldn't be so bad if it was monitoring traffic going down the hill. They would make more sense.
From: GT on 28 Jul 2010 08:27
"bugbear" <bugbear(a)trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote in message news:P82dnYUS1uqed9LRnZ2dnUVZ8kqdnZ2d(a)brightview.co.uk... > Mrcheerful wrote: >> Squashme wrote: > >>> I am sure that there may be "other ways of enforcing speed limits and >>> good driving standards", but how will you do for driving without due >>> care and attention anyone who drives at high speed past a yellow Gatso >>> camera, if you get rid of these cameras? >> >> traffic police out on the road in cars (not bicycles) > > If machines can do it cheaper, in this age of recession, > why not use machines, leaving humans to do jobs > that require more flexibility. > > It was interested to read that speed cameras > are a net revenue loser for the government, > despite the repeated claim by people > who want to break the speed limit that > they're "just" for raising money. Well what else do you think they are for? They don't reduce speed, or else they wouldn't catch anyone. They don't help safety, because the majority of drivers are forced to slow down when they see them and spend the next quarter of a mile watching their speed instead of the road. After a camera the majority speed up again. They may reduce accidents where the cameras are located, but increase them and make them more severe further down the road as drivers are forced to overtake on risky, short stretches because they can't get past on the long safe straight parts because the queue causer speeds upon the good straight bits. They do raise money because most people who drive past them too quickly are fined �60. As I see it they do nothing useful other than raising money! |